Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I think that would be enough, but just to be on the safe side, I will check with a couple of Members. Could we say 40 minutes evenly divided? I assume I will be able to yield some of that back.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and Senator Clinton. I ask, first, that the pending amendment be laid aside and that I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, I thought in the unanimous consent request we divided the 5 minutes. I am told we did not so it is still the time of the Senator, but I would say all I want to do is what we did in the bill. I want the USDA to follow the bill, and I would read a colloquy. It says: . . . funding for technical assistance will come from the borrowing authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and will no longer be affected by section 11 of the CCC Charter Act. For those programs such as the CRP, WRP, and the Grasslands Reserves Program, which involve enrollment based on acreage, the technical assistance funding will come from the annual program outlays apportioned by OMB--again, from the borrowing authority of the CCC. These programs, too, will no longer be affected by section 11 of the CCC Charter Act. That was on the floor from the statement of the distinguished Senator from Iowa as the manager of that bill. I do not know how much clearer I can say it. We are trying to get the Department of Agriculture to follow the law. I know the Senator from Iowa has been a supporter of all of these programs, as I have of the programs that affect his State, not those of us in the East. I am just saying I want the Department of Agriculture to stick to the agreement they made with the conferees at the time we passed the bill, and the only way it seems we can get them to do that is to restate it in this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. What we are saying is just build the firewall, not rob Peter to pay Paul from these conservation programs, especially CRP, which I support. CRP is used in the Senator's State of Iowa a great deal. I have always supported the other Senators. All I am saying is go back to CCC where this is supposed to be. That is all.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator who helped put together that farm bill knows the farm bill itself took away the section 11 caps. My amendment in no way takes money from CRP or anything else. It simply builds a firewall around EQIP, FRPP, GRP and WHIP, which is what we all agreed to at the time when the chairmen of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and others were trying to make sure they had votes to pass the farm bill. These programs were essential to get the support from the East where most of the tax dollars come to pay for this farm bill. This amendment does not take from CRP. We are simply telling USDA to take it from the CCC. It tells the USDA to go back to the farm bill, which spoke of taking this money from the CCC. It just builds a firewall. That is all; nothing more, nothing less. The reason I care this much about it is that it was pointed out during the farm bill debate that the bulk of the money was going to the Midwest, yet the tax dollars were coming from much more populous States, mostly through the Northeast, to pay for it. Almost all the money was going to the Midwest and other farm areas, but this is the one area that we got anything. EQIP is the only area where the Northeast States get some assistance--so it doesn't sound parochial, the backlog in my State is less than $8 million. The backlog in Iowa is about $29 million. We just want to build the firewall. That is all. When the Congress, in a bill that had been debated for weeks and negotiated for weeks, tells the Department of Agriculture to do something, I like to think they are going to do something. GAO says they are not following our clear intent.

Mr. LEAHY. This amendment simply follows the farm bill, and the distinguished Senator from Iowa was the chairman of that conference for the Senate. It was the farm bill on which we agreed.

Mr. LEAHY. I wanted to point out this amendment doesn't take it out of the CRP. As the Senator knows--he serves on the Agriculture Committee--I have been a strong supporter of CRP straight through. It is just that the original farm bill took it out of CCC. What is happening now is the administration is playing one off against the other with these various conservation programs instead of going to CCC like they are supposed to. All my amendment says is not to take it out of CRP--I am a strong supporter of CRP--but allow the Farm Bill to stand and take it out of CCC as they were supposed to in the first place.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, will the Senator yield on that point just for 20 seconds?

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator from Utah intends to, yes, I will.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah is back. If he would like, I would be prepared to yield back all time. I do ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Utah has said. He is a dear friend of mine. I try to emulate him so much, I even go to the same barber as he does. But in his State, Utah, they are $4.753 million behind what they thought they had been promised. I couldn't agree more. I have been on the Appropriations Committee for more than a quarter of a century. I don't like to see problems fixed in the Appropriations Committee that could have been fixed in the authorizing committee. But we did fix it in the authorizing committee. We did put in a GAO study. A colloquy between Senator Cochran and Senator Harkin and others makes it very clear we fixed it there. It is USDA that is not following the law. That is why Texas is behind $500 million in this area, Nebraska is behind $106 million, and Missouri is behind $200 million. I will just read some of these figures. I hope people understand this is not an attack on the CRP program. I support CRP. I voted many times for the CRP in 29 years. What this amendment does is prevent the administration from raiding other conservation programs. Unfortunately, the administration pits conservation programs against one another. What they should do is take it out of the CCC account, as we said in the law. But I hope when Senators vote, they realize, if they are from Arizona, they have $30 million in their State's EQIP unfunded application. If you are from Arizona, you have $30 million that your farmers are looking for. If you are from Alabama, you have $10 million they are looking for. If you are from Colorado, you have $36 million you are looking for; Florida, $36 million; if you are from Iowa, you have $30 million you are looking for but have not received. If you are from Kansas, you have backlogs of $66 million; Louisiana, $11 million; Missouri, $200 million; Nebraska, $106 million; Montana, $52 million; Oklahoma, nearly $25 million; Tennessee, $21 million; West Virginia, $15 million. Obviously, every Senator can vote any way he or she wants, but I don't know, if I were from a State that had a backlog of $10 million, as Alabama does, or $30 million, as Arizona does, or $17 million, as Arkansas does, or $35 million, as Colorado does, or $36 million, as Florida does, or $30 million, as Iowa does, or $66 million, as Kansas does, or $12 million, as Louisiana does, or $200 million, as Missouri does, or $51 million, as Montana does, $106 million, as Nebraska does, $500 million, as Texas does, or $25 million, as Oklahoma does, or $8 million, as Pennsylvania does, I think I might want to vote for this and not go back and tell my State, ``Sorry.'' I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the fiscal year 2002 EQIP unfunded applications that we now face.

Mr. LEAHY. During the debate on the farm bill, there was a colloquy. The distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, asked the then-chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee ``whether the legislation under consideration here today will fix the problem of the section 11 cap for conservation programs.'' The Senator from Iowa responded it would, and he said: As a result, for directly funded programs, such as the Conservation Security Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, funding for technical assistance will come from the borrowing authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation. . . . For programs such as the CRP, WRP, and the Grasslands Reserve Program . . . funding will come from the annual program outlays . . . from the borrowing authority of the

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY. This bipartisan amendment simply overrides the USDA decision and prevents funds from the Working Lands Incentive Programs such as EQIP, FRPP, GRP, and WHIP from being diverted. We are simply saying USDA should follow the law as any other Department has to follow the law. I have been in the Senate a long time. I have been a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee for nearly 30 years. I am a former chairman of that committee. I have long been an advocate for the CRP program. Some of my colleagues may be concerned how this impacts CRP. I assure everyone the amendment is a first step toward solving the dilemma the administration put us in by ignoring the 2002 farm bill. We need to solve the problem this year. Supporting the amendment assures it will be raised during conference. We cannot allow this or any other administration, but especially one that has demonstrated total disregard for the environment, to pick winners and losers among the conservation programs. If we do not address this, we will continue to rob Peter to pay Paul and it defies the direct will of the Congress--again, the direct will in an agreement that was negotiated between Republicans, Democrats, House, Senate, and the administration. We have tried to hold our end of the deal. The administration has not. We provided $6.5 billion for working lands programs in the 2002 farm bill. We want farmers to manage working lands to produce our food and fiber but also to enhance water quality and to enhance wildlife habitat. We are trying to put together a win-win situation: We enhance our water, improve wildlife habitat, and we still raise our food and fiber. For example, EQIP helps share the cost of a whole lot of land management practices that help the environment, including more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides, and greater use of innovative technologies to handle animal waste. It gives farmers the tools they need. Every farmer and rancher I have heard from wants the money there. Every farmer and rancher I have heard from says: How come we are not following what the law requires? If we continue to divert money, we are going to see programs such as EQIP, WHIP, and FRPP continue to face significant backlogs. Let me show you this chart. This gives you an example of the unfunded applications. In fiscal year 2002, USDA reported a $500 million backlog in the State of Texas, as I look at this chart. The national total is almost $1.5 billion--$1,486,000,944. There is a $17 million backlog in Arkansas, a $20 million backlog in California, a $36 million backlog in Florida, a $66 million backlog in Kansas, a $200 million backlog in Missouri, a $106 million backlog in Nebraska and, as I said, a $500 million backlog in Texas. My little State of Vermont has a $7 million backlog. But look how much bigger it is in the rest of these States. So we have to go back. We know 70 percent of the American landscape is private land. We know farming dramatically affects the health of America's rivers, lakes, and bays. We have to go back to what we agreed when we passed the farm bill. When farmers and ranchers take steps to improve air and water quality or assist rare species, they face new costs, new risks, or a loss of income. These conservation programs help share these costs, underwrite these risks, or offset these losses of income. It helps our farmers and ranchers. They want it. They thought we agreed on it. We thought we had agreed on it. We should go back to what we agreed to. My amendment, a bipartisan amendment, does that. It tells the administration to honor the 2002 farm bill by fully funding working lands conservation programs. The failure to adequately fund these working lands conservation programs is having a dramatic impact on both farmers and the farm economy. Mr. President, how much time is remaining to the senior Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I will yield back my 10 seconds.

Mr. LEAHY. How much time is remaining?

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the Senator 2 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the ABA indicates concern about this nomination. The Standing Committee of the Federal Judiciary gave Mr. Pryor a partial rating of not qualified to sit on the Federal bench. And indications from these peer reviews have been enough to raise red flags in the confirmation process. Let me talk about some more of the reasons we oppose William Pryor. Like Jeffrey Sutton, Mr. Pryor has been a crusader for the federalist revolution, but Mr. Pryor has taken an even more prominent role. Having hired Mr. Sutton to argue several key federalism cases in the Supreme Court, Mr. Pryor is the principal leader of the federalist movement, promoting state power over the Federal Government. A leading proponent of what he refers to as the ``federalism revolution,'' Mr. Pryor seeks to revitalize state power at the expense of Federal protections, seeking opportunities to attack Federal laws and programs designed to guarantee civil rights protections. He has urged that Federal laws on behalf of the disabled, the aged, women, minorities, and the environment all be limited. Limiting Worker And Environmental Protections: He has argued that the Federal courts should cut back on the protections of important and well-supported Federal laws including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Clean Water Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. He has repudiated decades of legal precedents that permitted individuals to sue states to prevent violations of Federal civil rights regulations. Mr. Pryor's aggressive involvement in this ``federalist revolution'' shows that he is a goal- oriented, activist conservative who has used his official position to advance his ``cause.'' Alabama was the only state to file an amicus brief arguing that Congress lacked authority to enforce the Clean Water Act. He argued that the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not grant the Federal Government authority to prevent destruction of waters and wetlands that serve as a critical habitat for migratory birds. The Supreme Court did not adopt his narrow view of the Commerce Clause powers of Congress. While his advocacy in this case is a sign to most people of the extremism, Mr. Pryor trumpets his involvement in this case. He is unabashedly proud of his repeated work to limit Congressional authority to promote the health, safety and welfare of all Americans. Mr. Pryor's passion is not some obscure legal theory but a legal crusade that has driven his actions since he was a student and something that guides his actions as a lawyer. Mr. Pryor's speeches and testimony before Congress demonstrate just how rooted his views are, how much he seeks to effect a fundamental change in the country, and how far outside the mainstream his views are. Mr. Pryor is candid about the fact that his view of federalism is different from the current operation of the Federal Government and that he is on a mission to change the Government to fit his vision. His goal is to continue to limit Congress's authority to enact laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause--laws that protect women, ethnic and racial minorities, senior citizens, the disabled, and the environment--in the name of sovereign immunity. Is there any question that he would pursue his agenda as a judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals--reversing equal rights progress and affecting the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come? Mr. Pryor's comments have revealed insensitivity to the barriers that disadvantaged persons and members of minority groups and women continue to face in the criminal justice system. Attacking the Voting Rights Act: In testimony before Congress, Mr. Pryor has urged repeal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--the centerpiece of that landmark statute--because, he says, it ``is an affront to federalism and an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness.'' That testimony demonstrates that Mr. Pryor is more concerned with preventing an ``affront'' to the states' dignity than with guaranteeing all citizens the right to cast an equal vote. It also reflects a long-discredited view of the Voting Rights Act. Since the enactment of the statute in 1965, every Supreme Court case to address the question has rejected the claim that Section 5 is an ``affront'' to our system of federalism. Whether under Earl Warren, Warren Burger, or William Rehnquist, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that guaranteeing all citizens the right to cast an equal vote is essential to our democracy--not a ``burden'' that has ``outlived its usefulness.'' His strong views against providing counsel and fair procedures for death row inmates have led Mr. Pryor to doomsday predictions about the relatively modest reforms in the Innocence Protection Act to create a system to ensure competent counsel in death penalty cases. When the United States Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality of Alabama's method of execution in 2000, Mr. Pryor lashed out at the Supreme Court, saying, ``[T]his issue should not be decided by nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.'' Aside from the obvious disrespect this comment shows for the Nation's highest court, it shows again how results-oriented Mr. Pryor is in his approach to the law and to the Constitution. Of course, an issue about cruel and unusual punishment ought to be decided by the Supreme Court. It is addressed in the Eighth Amendment, and whether or not we agree on the ruling, it is an elementary principle of constitutional law that it be decided by the Supreme Court, no matter how old its members. Mr. Pryor has also vigorously opposed an exemption for persons with mental retardation from receiving the death penalty, exhibiting more certainty than understanding or sober reflection. He authored an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court arguing that the Court should not declare that executing mentally retarded persons violated the Eighth Amendment. After losing on that issue, Mr. Pryor made an unsuccessful argument to the Eleventh Circuit that an Alabama death-row defendant is not mentally retarded. Mr. Pryor has spoken harshly about the moratorium imposed by former Illinois Governor George Ryan, calling it a ``spectacle.'' Can someone so dismissive of evidence that challenges his views be expected to hear these cases fairly? Over the last few years, many prominent Americans have begun raising concerns about the death penalty, including current and former supporters of capital punishment. For example, Justice O'Connor recently said there were ``serious questions'' about whether the death penalty is fairly administered in the United States, and added: ``[T]he system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.'' In response to this uncertainty, Mr. Pryor offers us nothing but his obstinate view that there is no problem with the application of the death penalty. This is a position that is not likely to afford a fair hearing to a defendant on death row. Mr. Pryor's troubling views on the criminal justice system are not limited to capital punishment. He has advocated that counsel need not be provided to indigent defendants charged with an offense that carries a sentence of imprisonment if the offense is classified as a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court nonetheless ruled that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment to impose a sentence that included a possibility of imprisonment if indigent persons were not afforded counsel. Like Carolyn Kuhl, Priscilla Owen and Charles Pickering, Mr. Pryor is hostile to a woman's right to choose. There is every indication from his record and statements that he is committed to reversing Roe v. Wade. Mr. Pryor describes the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade as the creation ``out of thin air [of] a constitutional right,'' and opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Mr. Pryor does not believe Roe is sound law, neither does he give credence to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He has said that ``Roe is not constitutional law,'' and that in Casey, ``the court preserved the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.'' When Mr. Pryor appeared before the Committee, he repeated the mantra suggested by White House coaches that he would ``follow the law.'' But his willingness to circumvent established Supreme Court precedent that protects fundamental privacy rights seems much more likely. Mr. Pryor has expressed his opposition to fair treatment of all people regardless of their sexual orientation. The positions he took in a brief he filed in the recent Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas were entirely repudiated by the Supreme Court majority just a few months ago when it declared that: ``The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private conduct a crime.'' Mr. Pryor's view is the opposite. He would deny certain Americans the equal protection of the laws, and would subject the most private of their behaviors to public regulation. A record of activism: On all of these issues--the environment, voting rights, women's rights, gay rights, federalism, and more--William Pryor's record of activism and advocacy is clear. That is his right as an American citizen, but it does not make him qualified to be a judge. As a judge it would be his duty to impartially hear and weigh the evidence and to impart just and fair decisions to all who come before the court. In their hands, we entrust to the judges in our independent Federal judiciary the rights that all of us are entitled to enjoy through our birthright as Americans. The President has said he is against what he calls ``judicial activism.'' How ironic, then, that he has chosen several of the most committed and opinionated judicial activists ever to be nominated to our courts. The question posed by this controversial nomination is not whether Mr. Pryor is a skilled and capable politician and advocate. He certainly is. The question is whether--not for a 2-year term, or a 6- year term, but for a lifetime--he would be a fair and impartial judge. Could every person whose rights or whose life, liberty or livelihood were at issue before his court, have faith in being fairly heard? Could every person rightly have faith in receiving a just verdict, a verdict not swayed by or yoked to the legal philosophy of a self-described legal crusader? To read Mr. Pryor's record and his extreme views about the law is to answer that question. The President has chosen to divide the American people, the people of the Eleventh Circuit, and the Senate with this highly controversial nomination. He should clean the slate and choose a nominee who can unite the American people. I see the distinguished senior Senator from New York on the Senate floor. Would he seek time? I yield the floor. How much time is remaining?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand I still have almost 5 minutes left. Of course.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Hatch to introduce legislation to extend the Undetectable Firearms Act for ten years. I appreciate working with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and thank him for his leadership on this legislation. The Undetectable Firearms Act became law in 1988, long before the tragic attacks on our country on September 11, 2001. The Undetectable Firearms Act also known as the ``plastic gun law'' made it illegal to manufacture, import, possess, or transfer a firearm that is not detectable by walk-through metal detectors or airport x-ray machines. This law has been extended once, and is due to expire on December 10, 2003. It is critical that this bill does not expire at the end of this year. Over the past two years, Congress has done tremendous work to make America a safer place and prevent any more terrorist attacks. We need to act today to ensure that Americans are not needlessly vulnerable to attacks at airports, schools, and other public buildings. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation to extend the Undetectable Firearms Act for the next ten years.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Hatch to introduce legislation to extend the Undetectable Firearms Act for ten years. I appreciate working with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and thank him for his leadership on this legislation. The Undetectable Firearms Act became law in 1988, long before the tragic attacks on our country on September 11, 2001. The Undetectable Firearms Act also known as the ``plastic gun law'' made it illegal to manufacture, import, possess, or transfer a firearm that is not detectable by walk-through metal detectors or airport x-ray machines. This law has been extended once, and is due to expire on December 10, 2003. It is critical that this bill does not expire at the end of this year. Over the past two years, Congress has done tremendous work to make America a safer place and prevent any more terrorist attacks. We need to act today to ensure that Americans are not needlessly vulnerable to attacks at airports, schools, and other public buildings. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation to extend the Undetectable Firearms Act for the next ten years.